Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Slaking California's Thirst

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.
To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

October 13, 1992, Page 00022 The New York Times Archives

Congress approved new water policies last week to help California defeat drought and start restoring rivers and marshes severely damaged after having been pumped nearly dry for decades, to keep irrigation ditches full.

The package was written by a rare coalition of Eastern and Western members of Congress, led by two Democrats, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Representative George Miller of California. It prevailed despite objections from California's Governor, Pete Wilson, who called it the opening shot in "a second century of California water wars."

Governor Wilson and others, including Vice President Quayle, are trying to promote a Presidential veto. President Bush would be wise to ignore them and sign the bill. California desperately needs its provisions; it is edging into what could be a seventh year of drought and the third year of its worst economic slump since the Depression.

There are two important features in the bill that benefit California. One says that water developed with Federal funds is a commodity no different from food and fuel that can be bought and sold within reasonable limits to the highest bidder. Federal water now cannot be resold and, with few exceptions, can be used only for irrigation.

The other provision guarantees that enough water will be left in streams and wildlife habitat to allow restoration of fisheries and other natural areas that have deteriorated alarmingly.

The bill has formidable support in California among businessmen, fishermen, managers of urban water agencies and nearly all environmentalists and economists. It is opposed only by farmers, who use 80 percent of the state's water to produce at best 10 percent of its wealth.

The strongest argument for Mr. Bush's signature is that this is a win-win bill. It makes sense environmentally and economically. Much California land is polluted or used for crops that make money only because of Federal subsidies. The water used on such land alone would meet the needs of cities for 50 years -- time enough to discover new ways to avoid waste and stretch supplies.

A version of this editorial appears in print on October 13, 1992, on Page A00022 of the National edition with the headline: Slaking California's Thirst. Today's Paper|Subscribe